Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on May 27th 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-17 are pending in the application.
The rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Bolton (GB 2500917 A) and Vinson (US 20160068784 A1) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 2-5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Bolton (GB 2500917 A), Vinson (US 20160068784 A1), and Attar (WO 2021130707 A1) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 6 and claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Bolton (GB 2500917 A), Vinson (US 20160068784 A1), and Depa (CN 10615667 A) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Bolton (GB 2500917 A), Vinson (US 20160068784 A1), Depa (CN 10615667 A), and Luzzini (WO 2021105919 A1) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Bolton (GB 2500917 A), Vinson (US 20160068784 A1), and Luzzini (WO 2021105919 A1) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 10-11 and claims 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Bolton (GB 2500917 A), Vinson (US 20160068784 A1), Luzzini (WO 2021105919 A1), and Rohwer (KR 100780566 B1) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 12-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Bolton (GB 2500917 A), Vinson (US 20160068784 A1), Luzzini (WO 2021105919 A1), Rohwer (KR 100780566 B1), and Attar (WO 2021130707 A1) is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brueckner (DE 102010027992 A1) and in view of Vinson (US 20160068784 A1).
With regard to claim 1, Brueckner discloses a cartridge which comprises at least three chambers (see Abstract). Brueckner further discloses the chambers contain flowable preparations which are different from one another (see Abstract). Brueckner further teaches at least one of the preparations contains at least one surfactant (see [0165]). This indicates that up to all three chambers may comprise a surfactant. Brueckner further teaches the surfactant content may be 0.1-60wt% (see [0167]) and the surfactants may be anionic or non-ionic (see [0169]). While Brueckner discloses the second compartment must comprise at least one bleach, the designation of “second compartment” is arbitrary. Bruecker discloses at least three chambers. The instant claims disclose only the first and second treatment compositions must be free of bleach.
However, Brueckner is silent as to the surfactant system comprising an anionic surfactant comprising a 2-alkyl primary alkyl alcohol sulfate and a nonionic surfactant system comprising C12-C15 alkyl ethoxylated alcohol having an average degree of ethoxylation of from 1 to 10.
Vinson discloses detergent compositions, an analogous art (see Abstract). Vinson further discloses 2-alkyl primary alcohol sulfates, particularly those commercially available under ISALCHEM, as suitable 2-alkyl primary alcohol sulfates (see [0003]). Vinson further teaches branched surfactants as effective under cold water washing conditions (see [0003]). The instant specifications list alkyl sulfates commercially available under ISALCHEM as suitable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the 2-alkyl primary alcohol sulfates, as disclosed by Vinson, in the detergent composition, as disclosed by Brueckner, in order to prepare a detergent composition which is effective under cold water washing conditions.
Vinson further discloses any conventional nonionic surfactant may be used (see [0127]). Vinson further teaches ethoxylated nonionic surfactants with may be selected from ethoxylated alcohols having 8-15 carbon atoms and an average degree of ethoxylation of about 9 (see [0127]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the ethoxylated alcohol nonionic surfactant, as disclosed by Vinson, in the detergent composition of Brueckner as such nonionic surfactants are conventional in the art of detergents, as disclosed by Vinson.
While Vinson discloses a single composition, each chamber of Brueckner comprises a single composition. It stands to reason that the teachings of Vinson could be applied individually to each chamber of Brueckner.
With regard to claim 2 and claim 3, Brueckner discloses that the chambers may have a bottom-side outlet opening (see [0031]).
Claim 4 and claim 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brueckner (DE 102010027992 A1) and Vinson (US 20160068784 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Attar (WO 2021130707 A1).
With regard to claim 4 and claim 5, Brueckner and Vinson disclose all of the limitations of claim 1.
However, Brueckner and Vinson fail to disclose a collapsible bag.
With regard to claim 4 and claim 5, Attar discloses a cartridge for a laundry appliance, an analogous art, comprising a flexible container which collapses as it empties after multiple dosed amounts of laundry chemistry are dispensed (see [00247]). Attar further discloses the flexible container selectively holds a laundry chemistry (see [0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the flexible container as taught by Attar in the multiple compartments as taught by Brueckner to selectively hold a laundry chemistry.
Claim 6 and claim 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brueckner (DE 102010027992 A1) and Vinson (US 20160068784 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Depa (CN 10615667 A).
With regard to claim 6, Brueckner and Vinson teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
However, Brueckner and Vinson are silent as to 0.5-2wt% of a first amine oxide and 1-3wt% of a second amine oxide.
Depa discloses a cleaning composition, preferably laundry detergents, an analogous art, comprising well known surfactants, in particular amphoteric surfactants, of which amine oxides are disclosed as preferred amphoteric surfactants from about 0.2wt% to about 10wt% (see [0151]-[0153]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the amine oxides as taught by Depa in the first and second laundry detergent compositions as disclosed by Brueckner and Vinson, as amine oxides are well known in the art as suitable amphoteric surfactants, as taught by Depa.
With regard to claim 7, Brueckner and Vinson teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
However, Brueckner and Vinson are silent as to the second anionic surfactant system and the second amine oxide system provided at a ratio of said second nonionic surfactant system and said second amine oxide system from 3.3 to 20.
With respect to the ratio of second nonionic surfactant system to second amine oxide system of 3.3 to 20 considering that Brueckner teaches the surfactant content may be 0.1-60wt% (see [0167]) and the surfactants may be anionic or non-ionic (see [0169]) and Depa teaches an amine oxide system in the range of 0.2-10wt% as disclosed in [0151-0153], the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference (e.g. 10wt% of nonionic surfactant: 3.03wt% amine oxide system or 3.3:1) because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q 549; In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In addition, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
With regard to claim 8 and claim 9, Brueckner discloses at least one preparation contains an enzyme, specifically amylase, at 0-50wt% (see [0151]).
Claim 10 and claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brueckner (DE 102010027992 A1) and Vinson (US 20160068784 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rowher (KR 100780566 B1).
With regard to claim 10 and claim 11, Brueckner and Vinson teach all of the limitations of claim 9 and claim 1. Brueckner further discloses 0.0025-2wt% of hydrochloric acid (see [0233]).
However, Brueckner is silent as to 8-20wt% of phthalimidoperoxycapronic acid.
Rohwer discloses a method to inhibit dye transfer which is incorporated into laundry compositions, an analogous art (see [47]). Rohwer further discloses 0.1 to 25wt% of bleach as an additional component (see [45]). Rohwer further teaches suitable peroxide bleaches known in the art, for example phthalimidoperoxycapronic acid (see [40]). Lastly, Rohwer discloses hydrochloric acid for use in adjusting the pH of the composition (see [70]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the phthalimidoperoxycapronic acid as taught by Rohwer, in its optimum proportions, in the composition disclosed by Brueckner as the disclosed bleach is well known in the art.
With regard to claim 12 and claim 13, Brueckner discloses a cartridge which comprises at least three chambers (see Abstract). Brueckner further discloses that the chambers may have a bottom-side outlet opening (see [0031]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brueckner (DE 102010027992 A1), Vinson (US 20160068784 A1), and Depa (CN 10615667 A), as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Attar (WO 2021130707 A1).
With regard to claim 14, Brueckner, Vinson, and Depa disclose all of the limitations of claim 1.
However, Brueckner, Vinson, and Depa fail to disclose a collapsible bag.
With regard to claim 14, Attar discloses a cartridge for a laundry appliance, an analogous art, comprising a flexible container which collapses as it empties after multiple dosed amounts of laundry chemistry are dispensed (see [00247]). Attar further discloses the flexible container selectively holds a laundry chemistry (see [0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the flexible container as taught by Attar in the multiple compartments as taught by Brueckner to selectively hold a laundry chemistry.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brueckner (DE 102010027992 A1) and Vinson (US 20160068784 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Luzzini (WO 2021105919 A1), and further in view of Rohwer (KR 100780566 B1).
With regard to claim 15 and claim 16, Brueckner, Vinson, Luzzini, and Rohwer teach all of the limitations of claim 11.
However, Brueckner is silent as to the first sub-container containing a first volume of said first laundry composition, the second sub-container containing a second volume of said second laundry composition, and a third container containing a third volume of said third laundry composition, wherein said third volume is less than said first volume and said second volume.
Luzzini teaches a fluid washing composition housed within separate compartments, an analogous art (see Abstract). Luzzini further teaches four separate containers containing different volumes, wherein the volume of compartment 1 is 1250ml, the volume of compartment 2 is 1000ml, and the volume of compartment 3 is 300 ml (see page 19 line 30-35). Based on these volumes, the volume of the third laundry detergent is 30% of the second volume and 24% of the first volume. Luzzini further teaches the distribution of volume allows advantageous separation of the components which are then preferably used in different washing conditions (Page 9 line 1-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the various volumes as taught by Luzzini for the laundry compositions as taught by Bolton, Vinson, Luzzini, and Rohwer, for the purpose of advantageously separating the components to be used in different washing conditions, as taught by Luzzini.
With regard to claim 17, Bolton, Vinson, Luzzini, and Rohwer teach all of the limitations of claim 16, dependent on claim 15, dependent on claim 11.
However, Bolton is silent as to the first volume from 300-900ml, the second volume from 300-900ml, and the third volume from 100-400ml.
While Luzzini does teach a third volume from 100ml to 400ml, the first and second volumes are above those specified in the instant claims. However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, see Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778F.2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that Bolton adds the anionic surfactant so the second formulation is stable with the bleach, whereas Applicant proposes amending the claim to be free of bleach. If bleach is added, then it will impact the two compositions running out at the same time, a desired impact of the claimed invention. Applicant further argues that Bolton teaches that it is possible to have a second surfactant and second cartridge but surfactant selection and the rest of the cartridge composition is based on physical and chemical stability.
As Bolton is no longer relied upon as prior art, Applicant’s arguments regarding Bolton are moot.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITTANY SHARON HARRIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1390. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at (571) 272-2817. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/B.S.H./ Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761